CONSIDERATION. [FIRST NIGHT.]

, on a point of Order, rose to call attention to the manner in which the Amendments were placed upon the Paper. They were down in all manner of places. It would be utterly impossible for anyone to follow the proceedings from the Paper, so as to know what the Government intended to do. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in what order the Amendments would be taken?

, in reply, said, that, according to the general rule, new clauses were taken first, and first among those would come the Government clauses. The Clerks at the Table had arranged the Amendments in their proper order on the Paper up to a certain point in the Bill—a point which, he feared, it would be some time before they reached. The others would be put down in order as they were reached.

All the Amendments that have been given in are printed on the Paper this morning, but not in their right places. A certain number of Amendments, with reference to the early clauses of the Bill, have been put down in their right places; and the House will, no doubt, deal with them first.

said, it would be convenient to know whether, after the now clauses had been disposed of, if a new clause, which was not on the Paper, were proposed, it would be competent for the House to deal with it before the other Amendments?

§
(Power for Land Commission and Sub-Commissioners to employ officers and servants of Civil Bill Court.)

§
"Where the Land Commission or any Sub-Commission hold sittings elsewhere than in Dublin, such Land Commission or Sub-Commission may use the courthouses commonly used for Civil Bill purposes, and the officers of the Civil Bill Courts shall, in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed times, be bound to attend the sittings of the said Land Commission and Sub-Commissions, and perform analogous duties to those which they perform in the case of a sitting of the Civil Bill Court."

§
The object of the clause was to enable the Land Commission and the sub-Commission, which was intended at times to represent it, to use the Civil Bill Courts and have the assistance of the officers of those Courts in disposing of their business.

§
Clause (Power for Land Commission and Sub-Commissioners to employ officers and servants of Civil Bill Court,)—
1904
(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,)—brought up, and read the first time.

said, he wished to say one word. Of course, he agreed with the insertion of the clause, for it was necessary that the authority sought by it should be given; but he wished to know whether the Government had fully considered the case of all those officers of the Civil Bill Courts whose duties would be largely increased under this Bill in regard to a proportionate increase of their salaries, in order to see that they were not prejudiced as regarded their rights? In referring to the subject, he was aware that the claims of one class of officers had been dealt with fairly; but he did not know that the Government had taken the power to themselves by any Amendment in the Bill to deal with the other officers in the way of increase of salary. He was quite sure the First Lord of the Treasury would take care that if any increase of work had to be undertaken by those officers, their claims would be fully considered, and dealt with in the Estimate.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had distinctly pointed out the proper mode of procedure if such cases arose; it would, therefore, be unnecessary to provide in the Bill for such cases. Each case would be amply considered, as regarded its own circumstances, in the Estimates. The character of the appointment and the nature of the duties would be dealt with as they arose, in the way mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but in saying that, he must not be understood to say that wherever there was an increase of duties of public servants there would be a claim for compensation. In such cases the whole claims would be considered.

moved to insert,
1905
after Clause 44, a new clause which provided for the appearance of parties before the Court by their relatives, or by a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, but not a solicitor retained as an advocate by such first-mentioned solicitor.

§
"Subject to rules made under this Act it shall be lawful for the party to any proceeding before the Land Commission or any Sub-Commission, or with the leave of such Commission or Sub-Commission, for the father or husband of such party, or for a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland (but not a solicitor retained as an advocate by such first-mentioned solicitor), or for a barrister retained by or on behalf of such party and instructed by his or her solicitor, but without any right of exclusive audience or pre-audience to appear and address such Commission or Sub-Commission and conduct the case subject to such rules and regulations as may be from time to time prescribed,"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,)

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "but not a solicitor retained as an advocate by such first-mentioned solicitor," as they were entirely unnecessary. He said the point was one that gave rise to considerable discussion when the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Bill was before the House. There was a difference of opinion upon the matter on the part of the professional and non-professional Members, the view held by the latter being that it was quite legitimate that one solicitor should be allowed to ask for the assistance of another as to the conduct of the case, and for the interest of his client. There were many young barristers who had not sufficient knowledge or experience to deal with particular cases, and the services of a local solicitor would be much more valuable in such cases. He would be better qualified, for in most instances he would be found to have the Acts in question at his fingers' ends, and from his local experience he would be better able to take care of his client's interests. It would also save much expense to the suitor, for the services of a barrister brought from Dublin sometimes cost 50 guineas, while an able solicitor would conduct the case equally well at from three to five guineas a-day.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the Amendment should be accepted. The limitation was entirely unnecessary, and the clause, as it stood, would impose a heavy expense on suitors in many districts in Ireland. He trusted the Government would accede to the Amendment.

opposed the Amendment, and hoped it would not be agreed to. The matter was very carefully considered in the year 1877 by a Select Committee of the House which had to decide that among other matters; and to adopt the Amendment would be to depart from the course of action then decided upon after full investigation.

supported the Amendment, and said he wished to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Plunket) that the Select Committee he referred to—that upon the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Bill of 1877—agreed to their decision, in the direction of the limitation proposed by the clause, by a majority of 1 only, when he (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) were absent, and had they been present, they would have voted the other way. He thought they ought to provide a simple and cheap method for enabling the tenant who desired to go before the Court to have his case conducted. If counsel was insisted on in every case, they would practically put an inseparable barrier to that being done. The clause was framed in the interest of the junior Bar of Ireland; but he (Mr. Parnell) thought the Bill would benefit the Bar, senior and junior, quite enough, without extending the benefit by the limitation proposed.

said, he spoke disinterestedly and with very great respect for his hon. Friends who sat around him; but he thought the adoption of the Amendment would be contrary to the interests of the tenant farmers.

said, the chief
1907
reason for retaining the words was that they appeared in the corresponding section of the Civil Bill Courts Procedure Act. The Civil Bill Court dealt with the same class of cases, and it would be inconvenient to have a different set of rules regulating the practice where the proceedings were of the same class, held in the same Court, and employing the same officers. He desired to point out that any suitor might employ a solicitor to plead, if he choose, before the Land Commission; and really all the words would do would be to prevent a suitor having to pay double fees—to one solicitor for getting up the case, and fees to another who, from his powers of speech, would act as advocate.

supported the Amendment, and considered it would prove of advantage to the suitor. He could see nothing in the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland but the legal desire to make things square. Really, the cases to be brought before the Civil Bill Court and the Land Commission were altogether distinct.

, as a practising solicitor, said he wished to testify to the inconvenience caused by the words of the clause proposed to be retained. The bringing of eminent advocates from a distance generally caused waste of time; and the inconvenience would be met if the suitor was allowed to employ a second solicitor, when he had a large number of witnesses to examine.

said, the object should be to cheapen litigation as much as possible for the suitor. Although he did not think the leaving out of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would have that effect, he thought a solicitor should be empowered to argue the case in the Court, instead of having one solicitor preparing the case and another arguing it.

said, many solicitors would be infinitely preferable to young barristers in cases arising under the Bill; and were they to deprive a tenant of the best advocate he could get, simply because he happened to be a solicitor?

warmly approved of the Amendment. Hitherto, barristers had everything their own way; and, in his opinion, the retention of the words in the clause was intended to preserve
1908
the monopoly which the Bar and Bench had heretofore enjoyed.

moved, as a further Amendment, to add, after the word "solicitor," the words "unless with the sanction of the Court." He thought the Government, after accepting his Amendment in Committee, should have no objection to omit these words. The limitation they proposed was not at all in the spirit of his Amendment.

§
Amendment proposed,
In line 5, after the second word "solicitor," to insert the words "except with the sanction of the Court."—(Mr. Healy.)

said, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. It would be throwing the odium of refusing on the Court, and pressure would be put upon them to grant their sanction. The clause was simply a copy of one in the English County Court Act.

moved, in page 28, after Clause 45, to insert the following Clause:—
1909(Disqualification for seat in Parliament.)No person being a Member of the Land Commission or an Assistant Commissioner shall, during the time that he holds his office, be capable of being elected a Member of or sitting in the Commons House of Parliament.

§
(Power to limited owner to leave out one-fourth of price of holding on mortgage.)

§
"A landlord, being a limited owner as defined by the twenty-sixth section of The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870,' may, in case of purchase by the tenant from the Land Commission under the provisions of this Act, exercise, with the sanction of the Court, to the same extent as if he were an absolute owner, the power of permitting any sum to remain on mortgage, not exceeding one-fourth in amount of the price which the tenant, under the provisions of this Act, may pay as purchase money to the Land Commission, such mortgage however to be subject to any charge of the Land Commission; and the principal moneys arising from such mortgage shall be dealt with in the manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts with respect to the purchase money or compensation coming to persons having limited interests."

§
The hon. Member said he hoped that the clause would meet with support from both sides of the House. It was introduced in the interest of the landlords as well as in that of the tenants, and would work no injustice to the State. He believed that many of the landlords in Ireland, four-fifths of whom were limited owners, would be glad to sell portions of their estates, especially outlying properties, if enabled by this clause to receive three-fourths of the price from the Commissioners and to leave the balance out on a mortgage, the security of which would increase year by year, as the charge to the Land Commission was paid off. Nor would the remainder man suffer, because the security in the hands of the trustees after the operation would be a portion of the value of the estate realized in cash, and the balance a charge on the land, the sum of these being equal to the present value of the estate, no more and no less. The clause would
1910
rapidly increase the number of peasant proprietors. He could not understand why the Government would not accept the Amendment, unless they were afraid of too great haste in the establishment of that class of the people.

§
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, there was no jealousy of the clause as tending to a too rapid creation of peasant proprietors; and the only question on which he should have liked to hear the opinion of some one interested in Irish land, or who represented that interest, was the question of the position of the remainder man in or under the clause—whether it was compatible with the practice of the Courts to leave him in the position of a person having a fourth of his interest standing out on second mortgage. For his part, he was inclined to think the clause was in the nature of a blow at limited ownership. He was not objecting to that, provided it was a blow fairly struck. In truth, the upshot of the matter was this. As far as the Government were concerned, they had no prejudice to the clause, provided it was one that was generally recognized by all concerned as equitable in spirit, and to be adopted on the whole in the interests of all parties; but he should be against their placing themselves in the position of having done an injustice to any person by the insertion of such a clause, and, even at that late period, he would wish to leave the ultimate judgment until they had received more light upon the subject.

supported the clause, which he considered a most important one, especially in Ireland, where there was so much of the land held in settlement. This was a question of value, the real question to be determined being the value of the estate. Such matters could be far better decided by the Court which was selling the estate, and knew its value and conditions, the character of the tenants, and all about the security that the land would offer, than by the Court of Chancery. He trusted the clause would be adopted in one form or another, as he thought it would be a boon to the small farmers,
1911
if it could be worked fairly to the remainder man. The power was to be exercised by the limited owner only with the sanction of the Court, and it might, perhaps, be provided that the Court should have regard to the interests of the remainder man. The curse of Ireland was limited ownership heavily incumbered.

, speaking as a landlord, hoped the clause would be accepted by the Government in some form. Four-fifths of the estates in Ireland were held under limited ownership; and if no such provision were inserted in the Bill, the good effect of the Purchase Clauses would be much curtailed. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) as to the evil of limited ownerships.

said, that, while anxious to meet any great public want, in common with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he saw great difficulties in carrying out the clause as now framed if it were added to the Bill. He would have been glad if it had been presented in Committee, so that it could have been discussed in a more conversational manner, for the object of the clause was a good one. It provided that the limited owner should practically be treated as if he were the absolute owner, and that was a serious provision, as it practically left but little discretion to the Court. Then, again, the interest of minors would be prejudicially affected, from the fact that the Government would have a first charge to the extent of three-fourths of the purchase money, leaving the security for charges for minor children very small indeed. He would gladly consider any clause which would give facilities to tenants to purchase their holdings on conditions which would be fair to all parties; but that object could hardly be attained by the clause of his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Shea). He objected to its being added to the Bill in its present shape; and, in fact, should have criticized its being read a second time if it had not been for the fact that his attention was taken off the discussion until the clause had passed the second reading.

said, he was glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) was favourable to
1912
the object of the clause. But there was certainly a difficulty about it as it stood, and he would see if by any amendment of the Bill, he could overcome it.

thought it better for a matter of this kind to be dealt with by subsequent legislation, altogether independent of the Bill, as it would be throwing an amount of extra work on the Land Commission, and he would, therefore, suggest that the clause should be withdrawn.

said, that the next clause on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, proposed to be inserted after Clause 7, providing that the Commission should be enabled to purchase encumbered estates where the judicial rent was less than the public charges, was out of Order. It involved a money charge upon the people, and could not he proposed without the sanction of a Committee of the House.

§
(Tenant obtaining advance from Land Commission may be required to let part of his holding to his labourers.)

§
"Before making any advance to a tenant for the purpose of supplying money for the purchase of a holding, the Land Commission may, where the holding is fifty acres or more in extent, require as a condition of such advance that such part or parts of the holding as the Land Commission shall select shall, so long as any portion of the advance remains unpaid, be let by the tenant in plots of one-half of an acre each or thereabouts to the labourers from time to time employed by him in the cultivation of the holding at a weekly or other rent to be fixed by the Land Commission: Provided always, that in no case shall a tenant be required, under the provisions of this section, to let to his labourers more than one-fiftieth part of his holding."

§
"Any land may be taken by the Land Commission for the purpose of reselling or reletting the same or any part of it to labourers in plots or allotments not exceeding one-half an acre each. The land so to be taken shall adjoin or be near to labourers' dwellings, or to villages in which there are six or more labourers' dwellings.

§
"The price to be paid by the Land Commission for any land taken under the powers of this section shall be settled under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts. The sale
1913
by the Land Commission of a plot or allotment to a labourer shall be in consideration of a principal sum to be paid as the whole price, and the Land Commission may advance to such labourer the whole or any part of such principal sum; any such advance shall be repaid and secured to the Land Commissioners in the manner provided by section twenty-two.

§
"A plot or allotment may be let by the Land Commission to a labourer on such terms as they shall approve.

§
"Any land taken by the Land Commission under the powers of this section and not sold or let by them to labourers, may be sold by them under the provisions of section twenty-one."

§
(Delivery of possession of allotment wrongfully overheld.—Compensation for crops.)

§
"Where under the provisions of this Act any plot or allotment has been let by the Land Commission to a labourer, or by a tenant to a labourer in his employment, the 15th section of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be applicable to the delivery of the possession of such plot or allotment when wrongfully overheld in the same manner as it would now apply to the delivery of the possession of any tenement within the said Acts: Provided always, that where the labourer shall have sown or planted on the plot or allotment any growing crop which he shall be unable to save by reason of the determination of the tenancy, the justices shall, by a distinct order, fix such sum (if any) as they shall think a fair compensation to him for the loss of such crop, after all just and proper deductions on account of any arrear of rent then due, and no warrant shall issue to execute the order for possession until the sum so fixed by order for compensation shall have been paid or tendered to the tenant."

§
The hon. Member said the case of the farm labourers had been put so fully before the House, and had raised so much sympathy from hon. Members, that he thought he could take their case as accepted, more especially as the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was carried the other day without a division. The object of the clauses was to extend to those cases under which the Land Commission assisted tenants to purchase holdings, the same conditions with regard to farm labourers as had already been passed in those cases where a judicial rent was fixed.

said, that the next clause on the Paper, standing in the name of Mr. Parnell, proposed to be inserted after Clause 26, and providing for the reclamation and improvement of waste land, was out of Order, for the same reason that applied to the former one proposed by Mr. Chaplin.

proposed to omit from sub-section 3 the words "or in the event of disagreement may be ascertained by the Court to be the true value thereof." The preceding words of the section were—
On receiving such notice the landlord may purchase the tenancy for such sum as may be agreed upon.

§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 18, to leave out after the word "upon," to the end of sub-section (3).—(Mr. Biggar.)

§
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, if the Government were to modify in any manner this principle of pre-emption, as laid down in the clause, which had been so fully discussed and approved of by an enormous majority of the House, they should be opening the entire Bill to re-discussion without the slightest prospect of arriving at a more satisfactory conclusion. When he remembered the feeling, almost of despair, with which the Government had viewed the question whether they would ever get through the clause in Committee, and the relief they felt when they did get through it, he could only express a hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) would not subject them to a repetition of that dreary experience. He should look upon the acceptance of the Amendment as a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government.

moved, in page 1, line 24, insert as a new sub-section:—
(5.) If the tenant fails to give the landlord the notice or information required by the foregoing sub-sections, the Court may, if it think fit, declare the sale to be void.Alter the numbers of subsequent sub-sections.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that inconvenience would arise if the tenant who was going to sell his interest did not give notice to the landlord. In case of sale the landlord, as at present provided, would have the right to proceed to the Court of Chancery and get the sale set aside; but, by this sub-section, it was proposed that the Court, under the Bill, should have the power now possessed by the Court of Chancery.

§
Amendment agreed to; sub-section inserted accordingly, and consequent alterations made in numbers of following sub-sections.

§
On Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made in sub-section (6), page 2, line 9, after the word "debt," by inserting the words "including arrears of rent."

said, that in order to redeem a promise made in Committee, he would move the deletion of the 7th sub-section, and the substitution of one providing for the apportionment by the Court of the purchase money as between the tenancy and the landlord's property in improvements executed by him solely or jointly with the tenant; and that such improvements so sold shall be deemed to have been made by the purchaser of the tenancy.

§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 13, to leave out sub-section 7, and insert the words "Where permanent improvements have been made on a holding by the landlord or his predecessors in title solely or by him or them jointly with the tenant or his predecessors in title, and the landlord, on the application of the tenant, consents that his property in such improvements shall be sold along with the tenancy, and the same is so sold accordingly, the purchase-money shall be apportioned by the Court as between the landlord's property in such improvements and the tenancy and the part of the purchase-money so found to represent the landlord's property in such improvements (but subject to any set-off claimed by the tenant) shall be paid to the landlord; and such improvements so sold shall be deemed to have been made by the purchaser of the tenancy,"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,)
—instead thereof.

§
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

said, he could assure the hon. Member that his objections were only imaginary. Where the landlord and the tenant agreed that the landlord's improvements should be sold to an incoming tenant, so that they might be dealt with in the same way as if they were the tenant's improvements, then the Court, out of the purchase-money, would apportion to the landlord such sum as represented his property in the improvements as distinguished from the tenant's interest in the holding.

said, it would be necessary for the protection of the tenants that the Court should on their behalf make the inquiries requisite.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he did not see what protection the tenants required. It was provided that the landlord should receive compensation for his improvements out of the purchase-money. This, of course, would be borne in mind at the time the sale took place.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he thought the landlord who had made improvements and laid out his capital upon them was somewhat prejudiced by this proposal.

moved an Amendment to the effect that the provisions of the clause should not be deemed to apply to unreclaimed moorland, to town parks, or to demesne lands which might have been temporarily let. He laid most stress on the moorland, because he knew that a great deal of moorland was held from year to year for grazing purposes; but it had been mixed up with other holdings which, under the Bill, would become the property of the tenant absolutely.

§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 24, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words "The provisions of this Clause, with its sub-sections, shall not be deemed to apply to unreclaimed moorland, to town parks, or to demesne lands which may be temporarily let."—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)

said, he had no objection to the Amendment so far as it applied to town parks or demesne lands; but as regarded unreclaimed moorland, there was nothing in the objection of the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine. If unreclaimed moorland was part of the holding, then it was clear that it would be subject to the provisions of the clause; if it was not part of the holding, it would not come under the operation of the clause.

proposed, as an Amendment, that the clause should not apply
1918
to ordinary tenancies. He wished to have some understanding from the Government, as to whether all the restrictions on the right of free sale were to apply to the tenants who did not get the benefit of the Bill.

§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 24, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words "This Clause shall not apply to ordinary tenancies."—(Mr. Healy.)

, in objecting to the Amendment, said, that it would not be favourable to the tenant. It was the intention of the Government that the clause should apply to all ordinary tenancies—those from year to year, as well as others. The ordinary tenant from year to year still retained his Common Law right of assignment, seriously affected no doubt as that was by the right of the landlord to refuse to accept the incoming tenant, a right which in its turn was tempered by the right of the tenant to compensation for improvements. This clause gave the tenant the right of forcing the purchaser of the farm on the landlord, if the latter could not give any substantial reason for refusing him. That, he considered, was a very considerable concession to the tenants, and, for that reason, he could not accept the Amendment, as, in his opinion, it was unnecessary.

, in withdrawing the Amendment, said it was quite true that the clause gave the right of assignment to the tenant; but it was of no use to him, as the landlord might serve his successor with notice to quit also.

said, that in order to carry out an understanding which had been come to in Committee, he would move, in page 3, line 33, after "estate," to insert—
Then, if his personal representatives serve notice on the landlord nominating some one of the legatees or next of kin to succeed to the tenancy, such person shall have the same claim to be accepted by the landlord as if the tenancy had been sold to him by the testator or intestate, and in default of such notice.1919
The Amendment was introduced with a view to giving the legatees of the deceased the power of presenting a single tenant to the landlord, and preventing the necessity of a sale.

moved an Amendment, in page 4, line 3, the object of which was to enlarge the operation of the clause in facilitating agreements between the landlord and the tenant outside the Court, in order to diminish expense and prevent litigation between the parties concerned.

§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 3, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words" or agrees with the tenant of a present tenancy that the rent payable at the time of such agreement or some lesser rent shall be paid by the tenant for a term of fifteen years."—(Lord John Manners.)

moved an Amendment, the object of which was to render the landlord liable for the expenses attendant upon the sale of a holding where the Court was satisfied that he had forced the tenant to such sale by demanding an unfair rent.

§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 20, after "rent," add "together with such further sum (if any) as the Court may award in respect of his costs and expenses in effecting such sale."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

§
On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 36, after "not," insert "to the prejudice of the interest of the landlord in the holding;" and in lines 36 and 37, leave out" to the prejudice of the interest of the landlord in the holding."

§
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 42, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "in the prescribed form."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

proposed, at end of sub-section 3, to add the words "or erect any buildings thereon which are not suitable and necessary for working it properly." His object was to protect the landlords against the erection by tenants of buildings totally unsuitable for a small holding. A landlord should not be compelled to pay for any buildings which were unsuitable or unnecessary to the working of the farm. A man might have two adjoining farms, one of 20 acres and another of 100 acres, and he might erect on the smaller farm buildings quite suitable to the two holdings as a whole, but quite unsuited to the smaller one by itself.

thought the Amendment was not necessary, and preferred to retain the Bill as it stood. A tenant was not likely to lay out money in a way which would risk his chance of obtaining compensation by erecting buildings unsuitable to his holding; and even if he did, other provisions of the Bill would protect the landlord being compelled to pay for any buildings which were not suitable to the holding.

suggested that the Equities Clause would meet the case. Under that clause the Court would be able to refuse compensation for buildings, to the erection of which the landlord had objected, and which were unsuited to the holding.

§
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 5, line 1, after "or," insert "the letting of land for the purpose of temporary depasturage or the;" in the same line, after "conacre," insert "of land;" and after "of," insert "its;" in lines 3 and 4, leave out "or for the purpose of temporary depasturage."

opposed the Amendment. If a man became a bankrupt his holding must be sold, and it was really not very material whether it was sold by the tenant under pressure from the landlord, or by the assignee in bankruptcy. The question, however, as to the omission of the sub-section had been already largely discussed, and the general opinion was in favour of its retention.

moved the insertion in the clause of words reserving to the landlord the royalties on mines, minerals, and quarries on holdings in possession of tenants, for the statutory term.

§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 7, after the word "bankruptcy," to insert the words "during the continuance of a statutory term, all the royalties, mines, minerals, and quarries shall be deemed to be expressly reserved to the landlords."—(Mr. Plunket.)

said, that the object of the Amendment was already secured by the provision in the clause enabling the landlord to enter on the holding in order to obtain minerals; and as to what were popularly called "royalties," it was doubtful whether, in many cases, they belonged to the landlord at all.

moved an Amendment, in page 5, line 23, after the words, "Hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish," to omit the words—
The right of taking which shall belong exclusively to the landlord, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act 1880.
These words, the hon. Member said, had been inserted in rather a hurried fashion in Committee, it being pointed out that in the case of a statutory tenancy the game should belong to the landlord. That was far too sweeping a provision, and one which they ought not to assent to. The law, as it at present stood, gave the game to the yearly tenant; but where the landlord was in the habit of shooting or fishing himself, or of letting his game to other people, it had been the custom amongst yearly tenants passively to give up the right which they legally possessed. As the Bill at present stood, it provided that a right of taking game should belong exclusively to the landlord. What punishment would be awarded to the tenant if he broke through that provision? There were many cases where the landlord never shot game, and where the tenant thought himself fairly entitled, as undoubtedly he was legally entitled, to shoot the game on his farm; but, by the provision he had read, such a tenant would render himself liable to a penalty if he shot game in future. It was a very stringent provision to enact that in every case where a statutory term had been entered upon, whether the landlord had been in the habit of shooting game or not, that game should henceforth belong to the landlord. That reversed the legal position of the parties, and involved an amendment of the Irish Game Laws, which was entirely outside the object of the Bill.

§
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 23, to leave out from the word "the," to "1880," in line 25, both inclusive.—(Mr. Parnell.)

§
Question proposed, "That the words 'the right of taking which' stand part of the Bill."

admitted that, as the law now stood, the tenant in occupation, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, had the right of shooting the game on his farm; but his right in that respect was somewhat precarious, because, being only a tenant from year to year, he was liable to be dispossessed by notice to quit if he insisted on his legal game rights. By the Act of 1870, it was provided that if a tenant was disturbed because he refused to allow the landlord to shoot, fish, or hunt, he should be disentitled to any compensation for disturbance—in other words, the landlord, by means of his power to serve notice to quit, without incurring liability to compensation, practically enjoyed the exclusive right to the game. The Legislature were now introducing a tenure of a more durable character, which would be, in many respects, equivalent to a lease, and they had naturally to consider what should be the rights in respect of game having regard to what a landlord would reserve on an ordinary lease. Unquestionably, he would reserve the right of shooting and fishing. He thought, on the whole, they must adopt some mode of adjusting the matter, without excluding the landlord from rights which substantially he had hitherto enjoyed.

said, he was glad to know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland intended to relieve the tenants of one-of their most obnoxious duties—namely, the prosecution of offenders under the Game Act. Although the game was nominally in the possession of the tenant, he did not think the Amendment should be accepted, for it was always understood that it should be vested in the landlord.

thought the hardworking tenant, who produced the rental, ought to have the right to enjoy all such sports as fishing and hunting equally with the landlord. He certainly thought that such an invidious distinction would have the effect of perpetuating ill-feeling between the two classes. Why was not the tenant to enjoy all the sports of a free man? He should rather desire to see landlords and tenants meeting in the pursuit of such sports. He hoped that the Court constituted by the Bill would be empowered to give con-
1925
current rights of sporting to the tenants in the leases settled under its jurisdiction.

said, that any proposal to curtail the acknowledged rights and privileges of the landlords in Ireland with respect to "game" would be received with a very great amount of criticism. The almost universal practice in Ireland was to reserve in all leases the rights of sporting to the landlord. That being the usage for many years, it had become recognized, and no attempt had ever been made in the slightest degree to interfere with such rights. Now, however, the Bill would render impossible in Ireland the existence of tenancies from year to year, for every tenant from year to year could be changed into a tenant for 15 years, and at the end of that period his tenancy might be continued for other periods of 15 years indefinitely. Therefore, a landlord would have no opportunity of stepping in and regulating his rights of property unless the right of so doing were now reserved to him. He trusted the House would not agree to any Amendment having as wide a scope as that of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). If any attempt were made in that direction, it should at once be rejected.

said, it was quite true that there were a great many large properties on which these rights were reserved to the landlord; but there were also a large number of cases in which there was no such reservation, and where the tenants had also concurrent rights at that moment.

said, he would propose an Amendment providing that, as between landlord and tenant, hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game, salmon, or sea trout should belong exclusively to the landlord. It would be very hard, for instance, to prevent a man from catching an eel.

§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 24, to leave out the words "the right of taking which," in order to insert the words "and as between the landowner and ten-
1926
ant, the right of shooting and taking game, and taking salmon and sea trout."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

§
Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

also objected to the Amendment, and thought it too sweeping in giving the landlord the exclusive right of taking fish and game during the continuance of the statutory term. Might the case not be met by the insertion of some terms to the effect that "If the landlord, when the statutory term is being granted, require this right to be reserved?" There were many cases where the landlord did not trouble himself about the game and fish.

explained that the reason why sea trout were proposed to be reserved to the landlord conclusively was, because they were very valuable, whereas a concurrent right, he thought, would be sufficient with respect to ordinary trout.

supported the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham). The Amendment meant a most extensive change in the clause as it stood before the Committee. The effect of the suggestion now before them would really be to destroy for the landlord the fishing of some of the most enjoyable trout streams in the country. He thought that the Bill did not actually
1927
purport to take away from the landlord anything of his amenities; but this Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would most certainly do so, for the right of fishing was generally looked upon as one of the greatest he possessed. If the exclusive right to take trout were taken from the landlords, many of them would be robbed of the greatest pleasure they had enjoyed in their estates. He suggested that the clause should read so as to give the landlord the exclusive right of shooting and taking game, and the right of fishing and taking fish.

thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was a good one, and that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would complicate the clause, and tend to make it unintelligible.

thought the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland's proposal a serious one, which required further consideration. Such an Amendment as that might have a very serious effect upon those who wished to remain resident upon their properties. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to let the clause remain as it was.

thought it would be far more satisfactory to let the clause stand as it was, without the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right of fishing was not only a marketable commodity, but it was a very valuable one. Indeed, he (Viscount Folkestone) should not be surprised that during the last few years, in many cases where landlords had not been able to get their rents from the tenants, or had had the greatest difficulty in doing so, they had had to be almost entirely dependent upon their rights of fishing for the means of a livelihood.

hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend would give way. It was remarkable that so few quarrels between landlord and tenant took place about game. The tenants were satisfied as things now stood; and he believed the proposal, if adopted, would introduce a new cause of dispute between tenant and landlord.

said, the clause might be so left that the right of shooting, fishing, &c., should belong exclusively to the landlord where he required it at the commencement of the tenancy.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, that in many parts of Ireland, as was well known, large numbers of inns had been built upon the banks of the streams where fishing could be obtained, and these were yearly visited by many English and other tourists. These places were of great advantage to the country in many ways, and they would be entirely destroyed were the fishing right of the landlord abolished.

suggested that matters might be simplified by leaving the right discretionary to the Court.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought to introduce the jurisdiction of the Court into the settlement of such an exceedingly small matter with respect to the taking of fish was quite unnecessary. He thought they might as well leave it to be settled between landlord and tenant. What he proposed was, that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the words "taking game or fish" should be read apart. Then his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would propose to move—
And as between the landlord and tenant, the right of shooting and taking game, and of fishing and taking fish, shall belong exclusively to the landlord, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880.
That, he thought, would carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).

§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 24, after the word "fish," to insert the words "and if the landlord at the commencement of the statutory term so requires, then as between the landlord and tenant the right of shooting and taking game, and of fishing and taking fish."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)